WASHINGTON – Three months after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, America and its allies are quietly discussing the inevitable question: How does this end?
In recent days, presidents and prime ministers, as well as leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States, have called for victory in Ukraine. But just below the surface, there are real divisions over what this would look like – and whether “victory” has the same definition in the United States, Europe and, perhaps most importantly, Ukraine.
In just the last few days, there has been an Italian ceasefire proposal vowed by Ukraine’s leadership to push Russia back to pre-invasion borders on February 24, and a renewed discussion by administration officials about a “strategic defeat” for President Vladimir Vladimir Putin – one that would ensure that he is not able to launch such an attack again.
After three months of remarkable unity in response to the Russian invasion – which led to a influx of deadly weapons into Ukrainian hands and a wide range of financial sanctions that almost no one expected, at least Mr Putin – emerging cracks in what to do the following are remarkable.
At their core is a fundamental debate over whether to end Russia’s three-decade-long integration project. At a time when the United States is calling Russia a pariah country that needs to be cut off from the world economy, others, mostly in Europe, are warning of the dangers of isolating and humiliating Mr Putin.
This argument is played out with the expansion of American ambitions. What began as an attempt to ensure that Russia did not have an easy victory over Ukraine changed as soon as the Russian army began to make mistake after mistake, failing to take Kyiv. The administration now sees a chance to punish Russian aggression, weaken Mr Putin, support NATO and the transatlantic alliance, and send a message to China. Along the way, he wants to prove that aggression is not rewarded with territorial gains.
Differences over the goals of the war erupted at the World Economic Forum in Davos this week, as Henry Kissinger, a 99-year-old former secretary of state, suggested Ukraine might have to give up part of the agreement. he added that “ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo” before the invasion, which included Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the capture of parts of Donbass.
“Continuing the war beyond this point would not be for the freedom of Ukraine, but for a new war against Russia itself,” Mr Kissinger concluded.
Almost immediately, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accused Mr Kissinger of pacification, saying angrily that “I have the feeling that instead of 2022, Mr Kissinger has 1938 on his calendar.” He was referring to the year in which Hitler has started its calendar. swept the whole of Europe – the event that caused Mr. Kissinger, then a teenager, to flee with his family to New York. “No one then heard from him that it was necessary to adapt to the Nazis instead of fleeing from them or fighting them.
But Mr Zelenski has at times expressed conflicting views on what would be needed to end the war, even offering to link his country to “neutrality” instead of seeking to join NATO.
Different goals, of course, make it even harder to determine what victory would look like – or even a confused peace. And they portend an upcoming debate on what position Mr Zelenski and his Western allies would take if negotiations to end the conflict finally begin. If Mr Zelensky agreed to some concessions, would the United States and its allies lift many of its crushing sanctions, including export controls, which forced Russia to close some of its tank factories? Or will it doom their hopes of crippling Russia’s future capabilities?
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addressed the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Monday. Credit … Fabrice Coffrini / Agence France-Presse – Getty Images
Ultimately, US officials say, the difficult choice will have to be made by Mr Zelenski and his government. But they are well aware that if Mr Putin gets his land bridge to Crimea or sanctions are partially lifted, Mr Biden will be accused by Republican critics – and perhaps some Democrats – of essentially rewarding Mr Putin for his efforts to redraw a map of Europe by force.
The debate erupted just as the form of the war was changing again.
Three months ago, Mr Putin’s strategic goal was to take over all of Ukraine, a task he thought he could accomplish in just days. When this failed miserably, he withdrew to Plan B, withdrawing his forces to the east and south of Ukraine. Then it became clear that he could not take over key cities such as Kharkov and Odessa. Now the battle has reached Donbass, Ukraine’s grim industrial center, a relatively small area where it has already made profits, including the brutal takeover of Mariupol and the land bridge to Crimea. Its biggest lever is its naval blockade of ports, which Ukraine needs to export wheat and other agricultural products, a key element of Ukraine’s economy and a major source of food for the world.
So far, with Russia’s strengthening, there is still no evidence that Mr Putin is ready to enter into negotiations. But the pressure will intensify as sanctions deepen its energy exports and the shutdown of key components hampers arms production for its depleted army.
“Putin, whether we like it or not, will have to bring some bacon, and Mariupol is a small slice, but a slice,” said Dov S. Zackheim, a former senior Defense Ministry official, in a recent interview. “And the price for Ukraine of life and materials will continue to rise. So this is a difficult political decision for Ukraine.
President Biden said a third world war could break out if the United States faced Russia directly. Credit … Doug Mills / New York Times
From Biden, driving to crippling Russia
During the first two months of the war, President Biden and his top aides talked heavily about providing Ukraine with any help to defend itself – and punishing Russia with sanctions on an unprecedented scale.
There were occasional hints of broader goals that went beyond pushing Russia back to its own borders. Even before the invasion, Jake Sullivan, the president’s national security adviser, warned that “if Russia tries to take over Ukraine by force,” its long-term strength and influence will be reduced. “
But on April 25, Defense Minister Lloyd J. Austin III, speaking with frankness that surprised his colleagues, admitted that Washington wanted more than a Russian retreat. He wanted his army to be permanently damaged.
“We want to see Russia weakened to the point that it cannot do the things it did when it invaded Ukraine,” Mr Austin said.
Mr Austin’s outspokenness has led the White House to insist that he is not changing the policy – he is just making the reality public about what sanctions and export controls were intended for. But over time, administration officials have gradually changed their tone, speaking more openly and optimistically about the possibility of a Ukrainian victory in Donbass.
Last week in Warsaw, US Ambassador to NATO Julian Smith, a former national security aide to Mr Biden, said: “We want to see a strategic defeat for Russia.”
Now, in meetings with Europeans and in public statements, administration officials are formulating more specific goals. The first is that Ukraine must emerge as a vibrant, democratic state – exactly what Mr Putin sought to crush.
The second is Mr Biden’s oft-repeated goal of avoiding direct conflict with Russia. “This is called World War III,” Mr. Biden repeated many times.
Then come different versions of the goal that Mr. Austin formulates: that Russia should emerge as a weakened state. In testimony earlier this month, Avril D. Haynes, director of national intelligence, explained Washington’s concerns. “We estimate that President Putin is preparing for a protracted conflict in Ukraine, during which he still intends to achieve goals outside Donbass,” she said.
And more and more, American officials are talking about using the crisis to strengthen international security, to win over nations that have been on the fence between alliances with the West or the emerging China-Russia axis.
As the United States refines its message, no one wants to overtake Mr Zelensky after months of administrative proclamations that “there will be no solution for Ukraine without Ukraine.”
“President Zelensky is the democratically elected president of a sovereign nation, and only he can decide what victory will look like and how he wants to achieve it,” said John F. Kirby, the Pentagon’s spokesman, on April 29.
Protesters organized by the Hungarian opposition protested against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in Budapest in March. Credit … Martin Monus / Reuters
In Europe, unity is beginning to fall apart
So far, NATO and the European Union have been surprisingly united in supporting Ukraine, both in painful economic sanctions against Russia and in the supply of more and more weapons to Ukraine, albeit non-jet fighters or modern tanks.
But this unity is under pressure. Hungary, which has backed five previous packages of sanctions, has opposed the embargo on Russian oil, on which it depends. And Europeans are not even trying, at least for now, to stop importing Russian gas.
The divisions are also visible in military purposes.
Leaders in Central and Eastern Europe, with their long experience of Soviet rule, have strong views on victory over Russia – even rejecting the idea of talking to Mr Putin. The Prime Minister of Estonia Kaya Kalas and the Prime Minister of Poland Mateusz Morawiecki …
Add Comment